About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
of value for what i pay. >> bill: they say we're doing this in the legacy of ronald reagan. bull you know what. ronald reagan raised taxes five times. >> reagan would have no place in the current republican party given some of the things they did. grover norquist holds him up as an icon. grover is in a completely different place than he is on taxes. >> bill: why don't the media expose these people as the liars and hypocrites that they are? >> because they're fair and balanced. >> bill: so are we going over the fiscal cliff? >> i think we are. i think we are. for a couple of reasons. one, there's not a whole lot of time. it is six weeks from tomorrow to the start -- >> bill: they don't have any backbone. >> that's number two. number three 80 lame ducks who may not show up to vote. plus you've got this stale -- continuing stalemate on tax and spending policies and then on top of everything else, it is not really a fiscal cliff. it is a fiscal slope. it stays in place. they called it a cliff but the damage to
was it, 1982 or 1983, back in the 1980's, tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and made adjustments to social security that saved the program. that's my point. sometimes you need to adjust and change to save the very thing you care most about. and so tip o'neill didn't sell out the democratic party by embracing that agreement. the democrats in congress, many of them very progressive at that time who supported it, didn't work traders to the party. if we do it in a responsible way, a balanced and doesn't just gut the programs and just not all entitlement reform with no revenue, i think the base of the party and leaders and organized labor will understand. they also know the alternative is doing nothing, with bad damage to jobs and the economy. and ultimately insolvency of these programs themselves, or. b, the right wing of the republicans are coming in and taking over because we have done nothing to solve the problem and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack. he's our first phone call for the senator. republican. go ahead. caller: mr. bayh, one question
earned that money and ronald reagan raised the age and that gave this this surplus and they robbed it out of there. >> thanks. nathaniel says in my opinion if we're going to cut the first thing to go is foreign aid. well there's another spending item. front page of the "washington post" dealing with the military. headline. four star lifestyle. points out the scandal involving david a try us has prompted new scrutiny of the general's lifestyle. the overseeing of troops around the world and these people enjoy perks. palatial homes and people to track their schedule and these with the jump page article the fog of more. do perks collar generals with a photograph of general a try us that would have been the equivalent of a presidential motorcade and then another one on dwight eisenhower on the 17th hole in scotland and the perks given to generals in the army and navy. admirals in the navy and others in the u.s. military. william from florida. democrat line. good morning. >> good morning. yes. i'll say instead of cutting entitlements like social security or medicaid. with social security, it's
countries have transformed, reform, lower the rates. we haven't touched it since ronald reagan in 1986. bill clinton did raise it at one point but we haven't done anything to touch the rate and reform -- tecum from 16.5% to 15% which most of you are aware of because you do business there, and this capital investment is going to follow countries that have a more competitive environment in taxes is one of them's a we have to reform the tax code and when you do that you will get more revenue. it's guaranteed. again, as i was talking at earlier there are opportunities here for us as a country and if you look at the congressional budget analysts this and go to the tax committee analysis what tax reform could mean in the economic growth and all of them will lead to more growth with this corporate tax reform. estimate of the president says what he did last friday, this was fought over in the campaign and we fought over rising tax rates. jay carney said they would veto any bill that extends the current tax rate so if he insists that tax rates go out for those making over to under $50,000 will would
that divided government sometimes has done very important things for the country. think of ronald reagan and tip o'neill reforming social security. ronald reagan and tip o'neill doing the last comprehensive tax reform. bill clinton and republican congress doing welfare reform and balancing the budget. we look forward to making this divided government productive for the american people. and we have, of course, as everyone well knows, a lot of challenges here at the end of the year. i'll be meeting with the president and the other leadership on friday to talk about the way forward. and we look forward to being a part of the solution to these significant problems. it's my plesh shoe now to turn to our newly elected whip, senator john cornyn of texas. >> thanks, mitch. it's an honor to be elected by my colleagues to serve as the whip. the assistant leader on the republican side. as leader mcconnell said, we have a lot of very difficult work to do, but we are committed to working with our colleagues across the aisle to solving the nation's urgent problems. we know what those are in the lame d
is the payback from party leaders? guest: there is change and then there is change. tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and saved the program. sometimes you need to adjust to change the thing you care most about. tip o'neill did not sell off the democratic party by embracing that. if we do it in a responsible way that doesn't gut the program, i think the base of the party will understand. the alternative is doing nothing with bad damage to the economy, or the right wing of the republicans coming in and taking over and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack in kentucky. caller: i have one question. can you guarantee -- guest: i thought you're going to ask why indiana university and kentucky and not playing basketball this year. for the first time they are now playing and we are rivals. i cannot talk about classified information on tv. things like stinger missiles are very problematic and we do everything we can to keep track of them. muammar gaddafi stockpiles of weapons, surface- to-air missiles and we're doing everything to track those down and secure them.
the center. as an independent, i can give advice to both parties. >> ronald reagan and jack kemp -- the party of upward mobility, that didn't seem to be the republican party this year. now, maybe it was because of this very effective attack campaign against mitt romney and bain capital and 47% of all that stuff. but i think hispanics and asians -- and a lot of women, they didn't vote for the republican party not just if you are hispanic because you think their anti-immigrant, but because it doesn't seem like the kind of party that will create a country in which you are were going to have a chance to rise. it seems, by their own statement and also by the definition the democrats gave them, is a more exclusive thing. if republicans don't change that, their future is not good enough let me just say that it he would've been allowed to be out there a little bit more -- he was a jack kemp disciple. i think it's remarkable that we could reelect an african-american president with the name of barack obama at a time when you had almost 9% unemployment in the country was suffering economically. no that
of the money here, but to be the big problems have been the trade agreements, starting with ronald reagan, the outsourcing of our jobs. there are a lot of people trying to live and $10 an hour while they are getting social security, medicare, taking out of their money, and then they are told by people like paul ryan and mitt romney that that is an entitlement. to me, that is like more of a ponzi scheme if they take that away. getting back to the elephant in the room, until we start talking about structurally change in this country beyond fighting over taxes -- you can fight over moving around the chairs on the titanic, but what really needs to be done is we need to repeal the trade agreement, look at taxing goods from china, and we need to get jobs back into this country, manufacturing jobs with wages people can live on and pressure for wages to go up. right now, the pressure is for wages to go down. you are fighting over what is less of the money coming in. host: let's go to the congressman. guest: this is an important issue that was fought over in the campaign. we need to support manufa
% interest rates gas lines, stagflation in 1888 different president. ronald reagan inherited a struggling economy. and reagan implemented policies 180 degrees opposite those of obama. incentive jacking up taxes, he slashed taxes. instead of exploding spending on the debt, he restrain the growth of spending and instead of unleashing the the regulators, by the way, what i think the regulators i can't help think of mr. burns saying release the hounds. [laughter] instead of releasing the hounds of regulators and small businesses a notch when there is, reagan limited regulation and the result was one of the most extraordinary burst of economic proactivity our nation has ever seen. the fourth-year regulation precisely corresponds to write here, the fourth year of obama's president be. anyone know what gdp growth was in 1984? 7.2%. our ideas work, their ideas don't. if you want growth, if you want jobs, if you want 23 million people struggling to find to get jobs, the answer is that the unique growth. they simplify the tax burden, reduce regulations and punching small businesses a notch for view
that to us when ronald reagan ran for reelection in 1984, the similar situation he raised money for his primary and the party come even though he took the public general election funding he attended for fundraisers in that year. what are we doing when we have the president running around? as i recall the nevada event after libya was a fundraiser. this is the fourth of his time in office is this election year and a spinning in a fundraisers. romney skeen skeen videotaped it is fundraisers talking about the 47% in a private room with people that's what they want to hear. that's who he's meeting with all the time. so this is a problem for both sides and were going to see the pressure in the house and senate races. >> we only have a minute left, but it does to hear if there is an action of some sort taken to compel disclosure or the higher degree of independence for whatever measures the face. the vision of the future two, three, four cyclists on the road butter politics is going to look like. you were describing a minute ago the growth of the party structure composed of these sorts of orga
, stagflation. in 1980, a very, very different president got elected. ronald reagan like barack obama inherited a struggling economy. and reagan implemented policies 180 degrees opposite those of obama. instead of jacking up taxes, he slashed taxes. instead of exploding spending and the debt, he restrained the growth of spending and instead of unleashing the hounds of regulators, by the way, when i think of regulators, i can't help thinking of mr. burns saying "release the hounds!" [laughter] >> instead of releasing the hounds of regulators on small businesses and entrepreneurs, reagan limited regulation and the result was one of the most extraordinary bursts of economic productivity our nation has ever seen. the fourth year of reagan's presidency was 1984, the same as the fourth year of obama's presidency. anyone know what g.d.p. growth was in 1984, 7.2%. our ideas work. their ideas don't. if you want growth, if you want jobs. if you want the 23 million people struggling to find work to get jobs, the answer is simple. you need growth and to get growth, you got to reduce and simplify the tax bu
been pro-immigration. ronald reagan was solidly for immigration reform, and if you go to youtube and google reagan-mondale debate, reagan making the case not for legalization, but for amnesty. using that word. now, republicans are pro-immigration, but they have been afraid for the past six years of anti-immigration lobby with an incredible political machine, and anybody who says anything constructive on immigration will be labeled pro-amnesty, and certainly, some talk show hosts, and now, i think this election cycle dramatically changed that. i can, at least, number half a dozen talk shows that said, you know what? my position evolved, and now i'm for immigration reform, but that is good because it will give cover to a lot of republicans who have avoided the issue or want to deal with the issue to actually do it so we have to reclaim the issue, and we can do it because immigration and being for immigration reform is actually the conservative position. restrictionists at the end is part of the nationalist, protectionist paradigm, and if we are the party of the family, if we ar
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)